Neo-Ottomanism Meets Its Limits
New evidence about who used chemical weapons in Syria overturns the stereotypes that had been used to justify the invasion in Iraq and do justice to whomever handled the situation of the Middle East crisis with modesty. In the article he published, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh submits a persuasive explanation about the way the American invasion in Syria was prevented.
In a nutshell, he did justice to American President Barack Obama and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who have both managed to cooperate — each for his own reasons — and prevent a generalized conflict in Syria.
President Obama had obviously utilized information gathered by the American intelligence services and the relevant material that was collected by the British and Russian intelligence services, as well as the United Nations investigators. In addition, he successfully listened to the political tone that was set by the British House of Commons, which made the historic decision not to interfere. That means he took into account the message sent by the [United States’] traditional British allies. The British have done the exact opposite of what former Prime Minister Tony Blair had done, deliberately misleading the British people about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and leading his country to war with Iraq.
The American president was in line with the expressed will of Russians, who have their own geopolitical interests in the region, to avoid a generalized conflict. But he didn't follow the wishful propositions of Turkish leader T. Erdogan for a general intervention against Syrian President Assad.
The revelations about the undermining role of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) in the Syrian crisis and the Turkish support to jihadis place Erdogan in a difficult position and weaken his plan to promote Turkey as a unique and strong regional power, and regulator of the greater Arab and Islamic area along with the superpowers. The neo-Ottoman geopolitical tactic of Erdogan and Davutoglu receives another blow on the international front, considering today's circumstances in Syria and even the historically significant approach of U.S. and Iran. The American leadership doesn't put all its eggs in one basket, certainly not in Turkey's.
The formerly powerful Erdogan doesn't only face losses on the international front. On the domestic front, he faces a downturn in economy and capital flight, a fierce dispute with his former ally and neo-Islamic leader, Fethullah Gulen, and the steady and increasing reactions of the educated middle-class people living in cities against neo-Ottomanism’s heavy hand.
The war in Syria, the approach of Iran, the crisis in Ukraine, and the long instability in Egypt and Libya take place more or less within European boundaries. They concern Europe either as a federalist system with geopolitical and geo-economic interests or because its neighboring member-states are affected. Greece is a country that can be affected directly and in many ways.
In a nutshell, he did justice to American President Barack Obama and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who have both managed to cooperate — each for his own reasons — and prevent a generalized conflict in Syria.
President Obama had obviously utilized information gathered by the American intelligence services and the relevant material that was collected by the British and Russian intelligence services, as well as the United Nations investigators. In addition, he successfully listened to the political tone that was set by the British House of Commons, which made the historic decision not to interfere. That means he took into account the message sent by the [United States’] traditional British allies. The British have done the exact opposite of what former Prime Minister Tony Blair had done, deliberately misleading the British people about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and leading his country to war with Iraq.
The American president was in line with the expressed will of Russians, who have their own geopolitical interests in the region, to avoid a generalized conflict. But he didn't follow the wishful propositions of Turkish leader T. Erdogan for a general intervention against Syrian President Assad.
The revelations about the undermining role of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) in the Syrian crisis and the Turkish support to jihadis place Erdogan in a difficult position and weaken his plan to promote Turkey as a unique and strong regional power, and regulator of the greater Arab and Islamic area along with the superpowers. The neo-Ottoman geopolitical tactic of Erdogan and Davutoglu receives another blow on the international front, considering today's circumstances in Syria and even the historically significant approach of U.S. and Iran. The American leadership doesn't put all its eggs in one basket, certainly not in Turkey's.
The formerly powerful Erdogan doesn't only face losses on the international front. On the domestic front, he faces a downturn in economy and capital flight, a fierce dispute with his former ally and neo-Islamic leader, Fethullah Gulen, and the steady and increasing reactions of the educated middle-class people living in cities against neo-Ottomanism’s heavy hand.
The war in Syria, the approach of Iran, the crisis in Ukraine, and the long instability in Egypt and Libya take place more or less within European boundaries. They concern Europe either as a federalist system with geopolitical and geo-economic interests or because its neighboring member-states are affected. Greece is a country that can be affected directly and in many ways.